TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2012, 07:58:44 PM

Title: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2012, 07:58:44 PM
Over the years we have, in attempting to identify artifacts found on Nikumaroro, accessed the microfilmed engineering drawings for the Lockheed Model 10 in the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum (NASM) archive.  It's a cumbersome, time-consuming process to find the right drawing (the LIST of drawings is 38 pages long) and often the quality of the microfilm is poor, but the results can be rewarding.  The engineering drawing for Part Number 40552 proved that the material, color, thickness and subtle compound curvature of a piece of plexiglas we found in the abandoned village (Artifact 2-3-V-2) matches the cabin windows of a Lockheed Electra.  Proof that the plexi came from Earhart's plane?  Of course not.  An interesting match?  You betcha.

Now we find ourselves poring over high-definition video of an underwater debris field of man-made objects and trying to figure out whether they may be debris from a Lockheed Model 10E Piñata that broke up 75 years ago.  As we continue our review of the video lots of interesting shapes are turning up but nothing that is obviously airplane (or obviously anything else) so far, but that's not surprising.  I remember seeing the New England Air Museum's Electra during its re-build and marveling at the amount of junk littering the hangar floor that you'd never imagine came from an airplane.

What we need is a complete set of engineering drawings for the Model 10 in digital format.  We know about the microfilm set at NASM.  We could probably make arrangements to scan and digitize it - a mammoth job but one that needs doing.  But we don't want to reinvent that wheel if someone else has already done it.  Or maybe there's a better set of microfilm drawings somewhere that we don't know about. Over the past decades at least four Electras have undergone extensive rebuilds - New England Air Museum's c/n 1052; Navy Pensacola's c/n 1130; the Kammerer estate's (formerly Linda Finch's) c/n 1015; and Grace McGuire's c/n 1042.
There are probably more.  Can anybody help?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Jeff Scott on September 04, 2012, 12:10:20 AM
Since Lockheed Martin is listed as a TIGHAR sponsor, do they have such information?  Are they willing to do the grunt work to process the microfilm?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2012/earhart.html
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Tom Swearengen on September 04, 2012, 06:31:37 AM
Hum----this is interesting. If not Lockheed, then possibly somewhere in military archives. Werent some versions of the 10 used as light transports?
Tom
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2012, 10:09:25 AM
Sadly, modern corporations rarely keep any kind of historical archive.  What old Lockheed records still exist are said to be in un-cataloged storage mixed in with proprietary and classified documents.

The Lockheed was used as a light transport and the microfilm files at the Smithsonian came from the Army Air Corps. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 04, 2012, 11:28:45 AM
Ric,

Microfilm served the industry for a very long time.  Why is a digital copy needed?  I do agree finding and keeping readers functioning is a problem.  There could not be that many Lockheed drawings for the 10E (at least as what is generated for modern aircraft).  Many of the piece-parts that you are looking for would be "vendor" parts or parts built to "standard" drawings.  What I am trying to say is that if you had all of the prints Lockheed Model 10E drawings you would still have only a small fraction of the overall drawings that build every part used in the aircraft.  A lot of the sheet metal parts were lofted (i.e. lofted full size).  Many parts could be made from a single loft drawing.  Frames and skins are good example.  Many other parts may have been detailed on the assembly or installation drawings.

The small nit-noy parts that are likely to litter a crash site would be defined by some sort of standard drawings (think switches, clips, brackets, connectors, even radios).  These will not be on drawings labeled "Model 10E" (or what ever the internal numbering scheme was being used at the time ---example:  The military C-130 was L382 where as the civilian model was the L-100).  They would be likely to have been used on other aircraft.

What I am saying is that you could have every "Model 10E" drawing and not have any drawing that defines recognizable parts that you are likely to find in one piece.  You need to try to fined the "standard" part drawings as well.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2012, 11:31:50 AM
Thanks Jay.  Sheesh, this might be even tougher than we thought.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on September 04, 2012, 12:45:01 PM
Jay brings up a good point. Would Lockheed have maintained a listing of their outside parts suppliers that contributed parts used in the construction of the 10E? Obviously Pratt and Whitney supplied the engine, but who else would have provided instruments, hydraulic assemblies, etc? Even then, I would bet that Pratt and Whitney outsourced items such as carburetors and starters. My feeling is that there would have been such a list if for no other reason than to point buyers to a source for future maintenance and repair. Finding a copy of that list would allow you to track any potentially identifying part(s) back to the manufacturer. At that point documentation would be needed showing the part went to Lockheed, then back to Lockheed to search for any documentation that might show what model(s) the part was used on, and then, with luck, an exact airframe. All of this is presuming that the part(s) were serialized and that the numbers are still legible. Were items such as instruments serialized or just the larger components like engines, landing gear assemblies, etc? As Jay pointed out, I don't think this will be as simple as scanning the Lockheed microfilm.   LTM, who was never very good with numbers. -John
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
We have a list of vendors who provided parts for the Model 10.  It's a long one and many of the companies no longer exist.
We're not looking for a way to track identifiable parts back to the manufacturer. I can pretty much guarantee that any identifiable airplane part on that reef is from NR16020.  We're looking for a way to help us tell if the objects we're seeing in the HD underwater video are identifiable airplane parts.  We need to be able  answer the question, "Was there anything on a Lockheed 10 that looked like this?"
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on September 04, 2012, 02:11:56 PM
I strongly agree with Jay.  There were likely not that many drawings in the 10E-specific package, and what there were might not be particularly useful from a visual identification standpoint.  Many smaller parts would have appeared only as entries on the Bills of Material and not been drawn.

This is probably something you thought of 20 years ago and have already checked out, but: for your purposes a military-style Maintenance Manual and, especially, Illustrated Parts Breakdown would be more helpful.  Do we know if Lockheed furnished any of this sort of support data with the military Electra models such as the XR20, XR30, C-36 or C-37?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: richie conroy on September 04, 2012, 02:43:40 PM
Maybe nothing but just found this site second picture down

 http://www.stuffinder.com/comman.html

Not sure were the email address is, But it's possible evidence there was a parts catalog available 
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on September 04, 2012, 02:59:03 PM
Maybe nothing but just found this site second picture down

Certainly appears to be on the right track!  It would depend on how many illustrations there are, and how detailed.  The caution that "this is not an IPB" (Illustrated Parts Breakdown) suggests it may not be the whole 9 yards.  If it's just a bare text listing of part numbers and nomenclature it would only be marginally useful. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: richie conroy on September 04, 2012, 02:59:32 PM
Here is one that was sold in 2011

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/orig-lockheed-model-10-electra-parts-165789215
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on September 04, 2012, 03:04:51 PM
Here is one that was sold in 2011

Sigh.  The ad shows everything except what we need to see, which is what the inside pages look like.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2012, 03:07:13 PM
We already have the Maintenance Parts Catalog and it's just a bare-bones listing of parts.  Very few illustrations.  Illustrated parts catalogs came about with the explosion of aircraft production in 1939.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on September 04, 2012, 03:40:24 PM
We already have the Maintenance Parts Catalog and it's just a bare-bones listing of parts.  Very few illustrations.  Illustrated parts catalogs came about with the explosion of aircraft production in 1939.

The MPC is a civilian publication, as for airlines.  No hope that the Navy or Air Corps/Force got something better with their Electras?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2012, 07:01:50 PM
The MPC is a civilian publication, as for airlines.  No hope that the Navy or Air Corps/Force got something better with their Electras?

The Navy and Coast Guard each had one 10A built as VIP transports but they were identical to the airline version. The Air Corps merely "drafted" existing commercial 10As except for the one-off XC-35 pressurized airplane which was a completely different animal.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on September 04, 2012, 07:39:15 PM
The Navy and Coast Guard each had one 10A built as VIP transports but they were identical to the airline version. The Air Corps merely "drafted" existing commercial 10As except for the one-off XC-35 pressurized airplane which was a completely different animal.

Ooops, Wiki strikes again.  For 10A's they show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Model_10_Electra) 3 built for the Navy, 3 built for the Air Corps, and 1 for the National Guard; and then 1 10B for the Coast Guard.  Apparently all in the '30s but not clear.  Then for the Air Forces "impressed" ones they show a total of 27 A's, B's, and E's, apparently all in the '40s.  Also the XC-35 and the one built for the Japanese Navy (!)

I was about to suggest they could use a little correction, but keeping Wiki straight is much more than a full-time job, and you already have one of those.   :)
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2012, 08:52:15 PM
The best accounting of Model 10s is "Lockheed's Model 10 Electra,"  an article by Thomas E. Emmert and William T. Larkins in the summer 1978 issue of the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society.  I don't know if it's available on line.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Patrick Dickson on September 05, 2012, 04:32:44 AM
what about....
 
Tom Roberts, EPAC:

There may be more than one Lockheed Martin archive, but much of the old (and not so old) Lockheed data is stored by Iron Mountain (an "information protection and storage" company) somewhere in Pennsylvania. It is indexed, to some degree at least.
I know that the old Electra drawings are kept there, and can be accessed by Lockheed Martin customer support personnel as required. Locating something there without having specific information about where it's stored might be difficult. I doubt that all of the indexing has been digitized.
 
has this avenue been traveled ??
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 05, 2012, 04:56:49 AM
We have serial number 1037 over here in the science museum London. It was kept at the museums storage facility in Wiltshire before going on display at the London museum. I will search the , Wroughton, Wiltshire science museum facility to see if the aircraft had any associated Lockheed drawings, manuals, paperwork to accompany it. If so they will be at
Wroughton.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/aeronautics/1982-964.aspx (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/aeronautics/1982-964.aspx)


Another lead is the Royal Air Force Lockheed Electras. 24 squadron Brize Norton flew them so may still have something on file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._24_Squadron_RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._24_Squadron_RAF)

Operator of civilian Lockheed Electra Model 10's also found in the UK. Will chase that down as well.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: C.W. Herndon on September 05, 2012, 06:19:34 AM
Jeff, if you get to make a personal trip to the museum, see if you can get a measurement of the thickness of and a tracing of the triangular piece of aluminum just below the windshield of the electra (picture 2). We need to compare it to the artifact we saw at the symposium earlier this year (picture 1).
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 05, 2012, 06:25:04 AM
I will have to take a ladder Woody, it's hanging from the ceiling :-[

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/)

The science museum are usually good at keeping paperwork, stuff that you and me would bin :)
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: C.W. Herndon on September 05, 2012, 07:17:02 AM
Oh. That's the one. I posted a picture of it earlier to try to show there were no visable fuel fill ports on the wings. I didn't realize this was it.

You'd better take a tall ladder. ::) Sounds like a good place to look for documents anyway.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Bob Lanz on September 05, 2012, 10:14:54 AM
Jeff, if you get to make a personal trip to the museum, see if you can get a measurement of the thickness of and a tracing of the triangular piece of aluminum just below the windshield of the electra (picture 2). We need to compare it to the artifact we saw at the symposium earlier this year (picture 1).


Woody, more importantly, the rivet pattern i.e. precise distance in between them.  From what I see, they do not match as there are only 8 on the top pic and I count 11 on the bottom pic and perceptibly a difference in spacing.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 05, 2012, 01:29:40 PM
Jeff, if you get to make a personal trip to the museum, see if you can get a measurement of the thickness of and a tracing of the triangular piece of aluminum just below the windshield of the electra (picture 2). We need to compare it to the artifact we saw at the symposium earlier this year (picture 1).

The artifact is not triasngular and it's way too thick to be from anywhere on the nose of the Electra.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 05, 2012, 08:24:14 PM
Just a cautionary note on comparing rivet patterns:  They are not exact.  The same part, from one aircraft to another, may have a different rivet pattern.  Mass produced parts may have had pre-located pilot holes or dimples in the original production parts which will set the fastener pattern.  Many parts have the fasteners located by the mechanic at the time of assembly.  If the part(s) in question were part of a repair the fastener pattern can be wildly different depending what the mechanic had to work with.  Fasteners in repairs quite often have to be located differently from the original fasteners to maintain edge distance on the repair and new parts, ability to get a bucking bar on the buck-tail of the rivet, etc.  You try to keep the original fastener pattern, but, this is not always possible.

What I am not sure of  "state of the art" that existed by the the time the 10E was built.  I believe the industry standards were pretty well set by then.  A friend of mine is building two Boeing P-26s from original plans.  It was the U. S. Army's first all metal fighter.  It was also the last open cockpit and fixed undercarriage fighter.  These were built in the early 1930's (1931-36).  The plans for these aircraft do not look like plans that I have seen from WWII era aircraft.  They looked like what you would generate if you were to build the aircraft out of wood!  By WWII the industry procedures and processes were very mature and look very much like they do today.  I think Lockheed was farther along than Boeing at that time.  The whole industry was changing pretty fast at that time.  At that time, in the middle of the Depression, drawing media, vellum and possibly linen, were probably expensive.  Because of this it was standard practice to detail multiple parts on a single sheet.  Once you have the drawings in  hand it may be a chore to find any one given part.  It will be interesting --- and FUN!
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Joshua Chaires on September 16, 2012, 07:06:09 PM
Hey Ric, Great to hear from you a few days ago hope everything went well in Chicago. My friend Jeremy Weagley works for Lockheed Martin out in California. If it is possible I could ask him if there are any old diagrams, charts, magazines, or photos of a Lockheed 10E Diagram. It is quite possible one could be floating around his branch somewhere. Hope all is well.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Mark Dannebaum on September 22, 2012, 10:59:19 PM
Ric,

Maybe this would help.

The only flying Lockheed L10-E in the world. This airplane has 600 hours since major restoration to the configuration of Amelia Earhart's Lockheed. It has flown around the world.

Lockheed Electra L10-E for sale (http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=19172)

My name is Mark Dannebaum and I have no other interest in the above ad other than to see if it can help you identify parts.


Edited to correct link.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2012, 05:44:50 PM
Just a cautionary note on comparing rivet patterns:  They are not exact.  The same part, from one aircraft to another, may have a different rivet pattern. 

Yes, and when you're talking about hastily made repairs the chance for variation increases.

What I am not sure of  "state of the art" that existed by the the time the 10E was built.  I believe the industry standards were pretty well set by then.

Yes, industry standards were pretty well set but the Model 10 predates the great explosion in aircraft production that began in 1939.  For the most part, part numbers were not stamped into parts and parts manuals did not include illustrations. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 17, 2012, 09:30:26 PM
Has anyone followed up the survivors and contacted current and former owners to see if a set of blueprints emerges?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 18, 2012, 08:47:27 AM
Has anyone followed up the survivors and contacted current and former owners to see if a set of blueprints emerges?

No.  Are you volunteering?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 18, 2012, 08:36:14 PM
Ric,
Let me take a quick pass at the survivors list, and get an idea of the task.
Will be back to you early next week.
In the meantime, think of who owners will most likely respond to -- whose name should be on the return address.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 19, 2012, 05:48:39 AM
In the meantime, think of who owners will most likely respond to -- whose name should be on the return address.

I'll be happy to send out the queries.  It's researching the contact information for the owners that takes time I don't have.
The owners who are most likely to have engineering drawings are the ones who did extensive rebuilds of their aircraft. I have good contacts at two of them:
- the National Museum of Naval Aviation
- the New England Air Museum
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 21, 2012, 10:49:20 PM
Ric,
Regrets. The magnitude of digging out all of the names is considerable. I already have commitments to a local Air Museum, and a spouse with chronic illness. So, you need to find someone else – perhaps several – to get the names and addresses for you to write to.
      
I have a number of suggestions for your volunteers if you want them, and a prelim. list of survivors.  Should I post them, or do you want them off-list?

Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2012, 08:17:18 AM
Regrets. The magnitude of digging out all of the names is considerable. I already have commitments to a local Air Museum, and a spouse with chronic illness. So, you need to find someone else – perhaps several – to get the names and addresses for you to write to.

No worries.

      
I have a number of suggestions for your volunteers if you want them, and a prelim. list of survivors.  Should I post them, or do you want them off-list?

I'll start a new thread.  There is value in assembling a list of current Electra survivors and their owners.  We'll include not only complete airframes, whether conserved or rebuilt, but also known wreck sites.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ricker H Jones on October 22, 2012, 03:22:11 PM
Bruce Kitt of Northwest Airlines History Centre sent the following reply to my enquiry regarding engineering drawings.  (Bruce had provided us with information and photos of the  Western Electric 631B microphones used by NWA which were the same type as used on the Earhart Electra.)
 
"I only wish the NWA History Centre had a set of drawing of the L-10. I think it's one of the most graceful commercial aircraft (next to the DC-3). I keep hoping that someone will includes both drawings, a parts list and maintenance manual, but so far, no such luck!
"The only place I can think of that may have drawings would be the New England Air Museum in Connecticut. They have a L-10 donated by a former North Central mechanic and may have also secured drawings and manuals. Otherwise maybe Pima County in Arizone but that would be all I can suggest right now. Good luck - and let us know if you are successful as our museum would like to approach the lucky holder to see about a copy. CAVU
Bruce Kitt
NWA History Centre, Inc."
 
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2012, 05:50:29 PM
The NASM archive has a set of microfilm drawings.  I'm currently corresponding with them to see if they would cooperate in a project to digitize their set.  It would have to be done by a reputable vendor and it wouldn't be cheap, but once the drawings were digitized it would be easy to distribute them to anyone who wanted them.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Kristina Sackett RN on October 23, 2012, 06:42:31 PM
Quote
Has anyone followed up the survivors and contacted current and former owners to see if a set of blueprints emerges?

I looked into this for three days, with little knowledge of what TIGHAR already had, and came up with tons of material but not what was needed.  I do have the time to this search if it is wanted by anyone at all.
Kristina Sackett
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 23, 2012, 10:01:25 PM
This was originally posted to the Survivors List thread, but it really belongs here.

Ric,
POTENTAL SOURCES OF L-10 DRAWINGS, BLUEPRINTS, PARTS LISTS, etc.         
First source: the FAA N-list of OWNERS
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx
this tells you who to ask.

***An example:***
S/N 1026, N38BB - Originally delivered to Braniff Airways as NC14937. The N-list will give:
Owner
Frederick W. Patterson III
2 Entrada Cir.
American Canyon CA

you have to go add the zip code from elsewhere   94503-3111
same with phone.

Then, go to the successor of Braniff. From Wikipedia we find: “The remains of the original Braniff—including Braniff Airways original Tax ID number (FEIN)—are retained by a company named "Asworth" in Dallas. Asworth was formed out of the old "Dalfort" corporation and is responsible for paying pilot pensions according to the Braniff Retired Pilots Group, B.I.S.E.”

There were several other companies that operated this aircraft, and I suspect that Patterson will tell you which they were. It also had a different N number when operated by during earlier owners  Provincetown-Boston Airlines – N38PB.

Then, go to Provincetown-Boston Airlines.

Many  probably had several N numbers over the years. The FAA permits changes for whatever reason the owner has.

Some entries in the FAA Nlist show corporate, or partnership names. You have to search the financial and state company data for real persons involved.

***End of example.***


Second, See Operators under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Model_10_Electra
For each US, UK, AUS, NZ, RSA, FR, and Canadian company, or its successor, have your volunteer locate the name of the current company HISTORIAN or ARCHIVIST. Write, or better, call, and ask if their records include the resources used by their maintenance departments, just for Lockheed L-10 aircraft, and if so, can you have a copy. If no historian or archivist, check SEC filings 10K etc., for names of directors – look for contacts.

Third, Air Museums
For all Air Museums that have an L-10, call by phone and ask for the name, address, and phone of the CREW CHIEF of the L-10. Then either call or write that crew chief person and say you are seeking blueprints, drawings, all illustrations for the L-10, and if they have some, can you have a copy. Note, AMs often have ex-military as staff – treat accordingly.

Fourth, South America
Find a person whose mother tongue is W. Hemi Spanish, and have them compose the same for Latin American historical carriers who used L-10s. If you have members in Chile, Argentina & Brazil, enlist them for research and tracking of L-10 graphics..

Fifth. Other Overseas
Because you have members in CAN, AUS & NZ you might ask for volunteers to follow up those airplanes. I do not know if they have public access to data as in US.

Sixth. The wrecks
Leave until last because tracking is difficult UNLESS there is a signpost in the data. See e.g., S/N 1216 in  the survivors list. For earlier wrecks, TIGHAR may have a list from when it did the Alaska wreck.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 24, 2012, 08:16:35 AM
Why not go to the source?

John Balderston already went that route.  No luck so far.

The assumption that a corporate descendant still has the engineering drawings for an aircraft designed and built by its predecessor 78 years ago does not reflect the reality of the aerospace industry.  In the current climate, corporate archives are rare.  Old records, if they exist at all, are usually to be found in museums or nonprofit historical societies.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 24, 2012, 10:37:41 AM
To: Ric

I was wondering if a through review of William F. Harney’s drawing data base has been made in order to obtain dimensional detail of various L 10E subassemblies.

If Mr. Harney was able to dimensionally incorporate various subassemblies into his final “scale” drawing of the L 10E he must have very carefully measured such things as landing gear components, instrument diameters, control surfaces, etc.

I would think that these detailed subassembly drawings/photos etc. (if they exist) would give us ample enough dimensional detail to identify various suspected airplane components in the debris field around Niku.

Just a thought!

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 24, 2012, 11:01:45 AM
I was wondering if a through review of William F. Harney’s drawing data base has been made in order to obtain dimensional detail of various L 10E subassemblies.

Bill and I worked closely together for ten years while he was building his model.  Before he died he donated all of his drawings and reference materials to TIGHAR.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on October 24, 2012, 01:42:28 PM
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company holds the TC for the L10E and therefore should still have the data.

Jeff, your thought is very understandable, that fact does sound impressive.  As a practical reality, first, the TC holder's motivation to maintain the certificated data package essentially ends as soon as there are no remaining aircraft registered with the FAA/JAA and holding a Standard Airworthiness Certificate.  Second, there is no direct FAA obligation for TC holders to retain the data in perpetuity.  Although not the case here, the situation becomes increasing comical over time as smaller companies are absorbed by larger ones: Boeing, LM, and Northrop Grumman end up as the TC holders for aircraft their companies have never seen, and on which they wouldn't even know which way up to bolt the wings.

It's interesting that the records show the location for LM Aero as Fort Worth.  Of course that plant was successively operated by Consolidated, Consolidated Vultee, Convair, and General Dynamics before acquisition by LM relatively recently.  LM has used it mainly for fighter production.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Tom Swearengen on October 24, 2012, 02:06:25 PM
Crazy and intrusive question---but how much real difference is there in a 10E, and a Beech C45? Yeah I know---but there are similarities, and we do have the Harney drawings to translate the differences.
tom
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Kristina Sackett RN on October 24, 2012, 03:24:23 PM
what is the cost of digitizing 38 pages of microfilm? I realize no  one wants to reinvent the wheel but so far all the possibilities are being shot down faster than Amelia could land on Gardner Island. As side from the alien contact instructions I couldn't understand because I don't speak aeronautical/code speak research language. All of my inquires have been in English and resulted in very nice replies with either the answer of "no" or please check with the Smithsonian. Although my Sr, airman Daughter did suggest the Library of Congress and that was a ton of fun yesterday. The list I found apparently is so old that it wouldn't even lead to new owners but probably dead people. Boeing is attempting to acquire a Lockheed, Raising funds but probably won't know about any drawing until they get it. That  bit of news was from May 2012 so I doubt it's that old.  So four + days into searching has brought me nothing but things I won't discuss on a forum! Cheers Fellows!
Kristina
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on October 24, 2012, 04:07:44 PM
I also know that the corporate source is, unfortunately, the most likely possibility in this case - however slim it may be.

"Slim" is correct IMO.  I can state from personal experience that Boeing and LM are unable to come up with complete, legible drawing packages for some of their own airframes that are 25+ years newer than the Electra and are still in daily service with USAF and USN, at high inventory levels.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on October 24, 2012, 04:22:18 PM
not yet up to speed on code: LMAC?  I'll keep poking, but I guess I learned until someone mails me plans I might keep my mouth shut.
Cheers

It's a club/clique thing, got to speak in acronyms and abbreviations or you lose points.  LMAC = Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (also, much less commonly, Lockheed Martin Aircraft Center).  Similarly NGC = Northrop Grumman Corporation.  Boeing is short enough usually to escape this, but there is TBC = The Boeing Company.  Or if you look at my icon, NAA is not one of Roosevelt's New Deal organizations, it is North American Aviation.

No need to be quiet, fresh viewpoints are always welcome.  Goodness knows mine are pretty fresh on occasion.   :D
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Kristina Sackett RN on October 24, 2012, 05:41:26 PM
Lockheed had nothing new, can contact boeing but doubt they would have paper on a plane they don't have yet, but they haven't gotten it since the last post. AFAM ent me to USAM, looks like ric has everything they have. Pima was a bust.
Exactly how many pages of microfilm are we talking? I might have contacts, if the company was asked nice.
Kristina
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 24, 2012, 06:30:58 PM
Exactly how many pages of microfilm are we talking?

Microfilm is on reels, not pages.  I'll have to find out from NASM how many reels we're talking about.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Kristina Sackett RN on October 24, 2012, 09:37:15 PM
the microfilmed engineering drawings for the Lockheed Model 10 in the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum (NASM) archive.  It's a cumbersome, time-consuming process to find the right drawing (the LIST of drawings is 38 pages long)  Can anybody help?

I think is where I got confused about pages and film. Microfilm was before my time. I was only looking for a ballpark number to get an estimate from two companies I work with. They may make it worth my time If I thought it was worth my time. If no one wants the numbers...then I have the answer.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Kristina Sackett RN on October 27, 2012, 03:12:25 PM
I'm sure this has been thought of and discarded but as a newbie I have to ask.  Is there anyway with all of the pictures and information besides the microfilm, to take those and scan them into a computer program to make the images needed? Do we have the specs on everything to be able to make an accurate image?  Just  a thought.
Kristina
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 30, 2012, 12:01:50 AM
Ric
re. contacts who own, or used to own L-10s, as a source of drawings, parts lists, etc.

Fred Patterson S/N 1026, N38BB, here is his phone:
415 828-1364 . • Fax: 415 828-1364


A second potential contact:
Lockheed S/N 1015
N72GT
Apparent current owner
Linda Finch
NR16020 LLC
2310 Linden Ave
Boulder CO 80304-1619
(1-303-449-4251) this appears to be a home phone no.

Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 30, 2012, 12:43:07 AM
Ric,
Another early one. This is in the Pima Museum. Most recent previous owner, below.
S/N 1011    N4963C
 
Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration
Name    BEAN ROBERT F
Street    PO BOX 65
City    HAWTHORNE
State    CALIFORNIA    Zip Code    90250
County    LOS ANGELES
Country    UNITED STATES

A fast look did not find a phone for Robert F. Bean. Snail mail will probably suffice. Have you contacted Pima AM re. their holdings of L-10 drawings, parts lists, documents, etc.?

PS. Suggest you always include "Parts Lists" in requests. FYI, my crew chief of the A-26 has a Parts List (albeit for a 1944 military plane) that is near five inches thick of about 9x12. Mind you, he has been building it for at least a decade. It is full of diagrams.

PPS, we do hope Sandy does not have you paddling madly. As I recall, on my way from PHL to the boat at Annapolis, none of Delaware was much more than 10ft above MHW.

Regards
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Matt Revington on October 30, 2012, 04:21:31 AM
Michael
Good work finding this data but it would be a good idea to email it directly to Ric.  Posting people's home addresses and phone numbers openly on this forum is probably not a great idea given the number of scammers and parasites who harvest info from Internet sites.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on October 30, 2012, 11:05:50 AM
Matt
Understand.
Anything I list here is public domain.
See FAA N List.
Google "phone for . . . " and you'll likely come up with a number for 60-70% of the names you enter.

In my world, no private info goes in any computer anywhere -- by definition, once in a computer, it is no longer private -- it can be reached, even if not wired to the internet.

Regards
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on November 19, 2012, 07:19:56 PM
Appended pic of left main gear retracted turned up recently on a Spanish language page,
http://www.aviationcorner.net/gallery.asp?aircraft_type=Lockheed%20L-10&aircraft_type_id=777
It is the clearest I've seen yet.
The plane is S/N 1037 (was N1571N) and is in the Science Museum in London.
Miguel Martin Cordeiro claims copyright. I provide it on the basis it is non-commercial provision to a non-profit entity.
BTW, note the rivet patterns. They will show you positions of ribs, spars and reinforcements.

Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Michael Elliot on November 25, 2012, 09:07:07 PM
Ric,
The L-10 Parts List pub. is still available on stuffinder.com. Our experience with Douglas, NA, and other parts lists from WW-II era is that they are invaluable. As I haven't seen this, and it's from the early '30s, I cannot assure details. Do you already have this, or have you decided you don’t want it. If neither, it’s probably worth the $100 Tom Heitzman is asking for it.

Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Alan Harris on November 25, 2012, 09:26:47 PM
Ric,
The L-10 Parts List pub. is still available on stuffinder.com. Our experience with Douglas, NA, and other parts lists from WW-II era is that they are invaluable. As I haven't seen this, and it's from the early '30s, I cannot assure details. Do you already have this, or have you decided you don’t want it. If neither, it’s probably worth the $100 Tom Heitzman is asking for it.

I think in this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,941.msg19523.html#msg19523) Ric said they already have it and it hasn't proved all that helpful for visual identification purposes.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: richie conroy on July 20, 2013, 12:47:27 PM
Hi All

Probably of no use, But the fact the teenager in the video has access to repair log and possibly the build plans for Earhart's Electra may be worth getting in touch with him.

 http://www.travelchannel.com/video/part-of-earharts-plane-found

Apologies if this has already been subject to discussion

Thank's Richie
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 20, 2013, 02:28:39 PM
Probably of no use, But the fact the teenager in the video has access to repair log and possibly the build plans for Earhart's Electra may be worth getting in touch with him.

 http://www.travelchannel.com/video/part-of-earharts-plane-found (http://www.travelchannel.com/video/part-of-earharts-plane-found)

Apologies if this has already been subject to discussion

Ric participated in the making of the show (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/54_HistoryDetectives/%20%2054_HDreport.html), I believe.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 20, 2013, 02:35:00 PM
Ric participated in the making of the show (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/54_HistoryDetectives/%20%2054_HDreport.html), I believe.

Yes, unfortunately.  We went spent many hours on that piece of scrap and accurately placed it on the Electra but the TV producers decided to go with Grace McGuire's explanation.  Total BS.
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: richie conroy on July 20, 2013, 02:40:28 PM
Thank's Marty

I only read that page other day as well  ::)

It was the part picked up on runway not the twisted bit of aluminum, i was wondering about how did they match it to an individual part ?

Thank's Richie
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 20, 2013, 03:03:12 PM
It was the part picked up on runway not the twisted bit of aluminum, i was wondering about how did they match it to an individual part ?

I'm lost, Richie.

These two videos seem to me to be talking about the same piece of aluminum:

http://www.travelchannel.com/video/part-of-earharts-plane-found

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigation/amelia-earhart-plane/

I can't understand your question.  You seem to think that there are two pieces of aluminum, one that is different from the "twisted bit of aluminum" in the two videos.    What gives you the impression that there is more than one piece of aluminum available to study?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: richie conroy on July 20, 2013, 03:48:12 PM
Marty 00:37 of video it says he received a gift an the object in his hand is black not aluminum an you see it again at 2:25 ?
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 20, 2013, 04:23:59 PM
Interestingly it doesn't actually look like a recognisable part of an airplane, but it is. ;)
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 20, 2013, 04:50:10 PM
Marty 00:37 of video it says he received a gift an the object in his hand is black not aluminum an you see it again at 2:25 ?

The piece of the airplane is shown at 17 seconds into the video.  The voice over is, "This shard of metal was donated to the Museum of Flight in Seattle.  Its owner claims ..."

It appears several more times in the video.

The black thing he's playing with at his desk looks to me like a throttle-lever assembly, but it could be for a lawn mower or an outboard motor.  It is definitely unrelated to the aircraft part that is shown in far greater detail all throughout the rest of the video and that matches the part Ric looked at for "History Detectives."

The Museum of Flight in Seattle has a recent article (http://www.museumofflight.org/files/aloft/aloft_2013-mar-apr.pdf) about the donation of the piece by Jon Ott to the Museum.  You will notice that the still photos bear a very close resemblance to the images shown in both video links up above.

I conclude where I began: Ric knows pretty much all there is to know about this piece.  (There are discrepancies about who gave him the piece, but that's life with the media, I guess.)
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: richie conroy on July 20, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
Thanks Marty

I was referring to the "black thingy me bob" Not the cowling catch lock  :)
Title: Re: Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 20, 2013, 09:41:32 PM
I was referring to the "black thingy me bob" Not the cowling catch lock  :)

It is not from an Electra.

It was something for him to play with while being filmed.